CHRISTIAN PATRIOTS
FOR LIFE
- Education Series -
A Matter of Life & Mass Murder
- Ending "Legal" Abortion -
Toward a Constitutional Remedy
The Legal Argument
|
Table of Contents:
|
|
Removal of federal court jurisdiction (VERY IMPORTANT)
|
We The People Act <<< (MOST IMPORTANT)
|
|
Introduction:
U.S. Abortion Laws Before Roe v Wade
by Brian Young
In the years prior to and immediately after the American
Revolution, colonists and citizens followed the rule of law brought by
British settlers, the "common law." Rather than being a code of
statutes passed by a legislature and printed in a book, the common law
was a set of legal standards established in England through court
decisions and legal custom.
According to Sir William Blackstone, the renowned 18th century
English jurist, under common law, the abortion of a 'quickened' fetus
was a 'very heinous misdemeanor.' At that time the penalty for
misdemeanors could be severe; loss of a limb, confiscation of property
or life in prison.
'Quickening' - when a pregnant woman first feels her child move -
generally occurs in the fourth month. Scholars have noted that the
common law requirement of a 'quickened' baby for the crime of
abortion was probably based on a very practical consideration.
Since there were no pregnancy tests in the 18th century, evidence
that a baby's movement had been felt might have been the only way
to establish with any certainty in a court of law that a pregnancy had
existed.
The first US law against abortion, adopted by Connecticut in 1821,
criminalized the administration of poison or of any "destructive
substance" to induce a miscarriage. It applied only to cases where the
baby had "quickened."
In 1840, however, Maine became the first state to pass a law that
expressly protected all babies, "quick or not."
The abandonment of the "quickening" requirement coincided with the
19th century discovery of how conception takes place. The public,
lawmakers and jurists were becoming aware of the scientific fact that
life begins when a sperm enters an ovum.
During the first decades of the 1800's, scientists began to understand the cellular
basis of life and for the first time were able to observe the process of fertilization in
mammals. As the stages of development became clear, it also became clear that
abortion kills a living human being, no matter what the stage of the child's
development. The resulting scientific knowledge about the process of conception
and development led to efforts to enact stronger bans on abortion. In addition,
scientific progress allowed for surgical means of performing abortion, and abortion
was perceived to be on the increase. Beginning in 1859, the American Medical
Association called for strong anti-abortion laws and vigorous enforcement of them.
In view of the claim by twentieth century abortionists that physicians did this only
to protect their own profession or solely to protect women's health, it is useful to
quote the doctors themselves on why they wanted action by the states:
"The first of these causes is a wide-spread popular ignorance of
the true character of the crime--a belief, even among mothers
themselves, that the foetus is not alive till after the period of
quickening.
"The second of the agents alluded to is the fact that the profession
themselves are frequently supposed careless of fetal life; . . .
"The third reason of the frightful extent of this crime is found in the
grave defects of our laws, both common and statute, as regards
the independent and actual existence of the child before birth,
as a living being.
"In accordance, therefore, with the facts in the case, the Committee
would advise that this body, representing, as it does, the physicians
of the land, publicly express its abhorrence of the unnatural and
now rapidly increasing crime of abortion; that it avow its true nature,
as no simple offence against public morality and decency, no mere
misdemeanor, no attempt upon the life of the mother, but the wanton
and murderous destruction of her child; . . . "
Volume 12, Transactions of the American Medical Association,
pp. 75-78 (1859).
The AMA adopted the recommendation described above and sponsored initiatives in
all states, spurring most legislatures to enact strong prohibitions upon abortion that
swept away the "quickening" distinction. In the remaining states, abortion remained
prohibited by common law.
by Brian Young
Pro-abortion historians claim that these laws were passed
primarily, if not solely, to protect women from possibly fatal
abortions. Concern for pre-term babies was not a factor, they claim.
Yet, as law professor Joseph Dellapenna has noted, all surgeries at
that time involved substantial risks of death. If legislators were
motivated to pass anti-abortion statutes only to protect women, why did
they not protect other patients by banning other potentially dangerous
fatal elective surgeries?
Coincidentally or not, during this period of pro-life legislative
activity Congress passed and 28 states ratified the 14th Amendment,
prohibiting any state from depriving "any person of life, liberty, or
property without the due process of law."
By 1910, every state except Kentucky had passed an anti-abortion
law (and Kentucky's courts had declared abortion at any stage of
gestation to be illegal).
By 1967, not much had changed. In 49 states, abortion was a
felony; in New Jersey, it was a high misdemeanor. Furthermore, 29
states banned abortion advertising, and many outlawed the
manufacture or distribution of abortifacients.
In 1967, though, state abortion laws began to change, but only
after years of organized campaigns by pro-abortion forces.
The American Law Institute (ALI) proposed, in its 1959 model
criminal code for all the states, a "reform" abortion law. The model
bill, approved by ALI in 1962, declared that abortion should be
permitted for the physical or mental health of the mother, for fetal
abnormality, and for rape or incest.
While the leaders of the American legal community were promoting
radical changes in state abortion law, a 1962 case in Arizona generated
sympathetic press coverage of the notion of "justifiable abortion."
Mrs Sherri Finkbine, a married mother, made public her intention to
abort her fifth child. She had taken some tranquilizers/sleeping pills
her husband had brought home from a trip to England. The pills turned
out to be Thalidomide, a drug that had become associated with birth
defects. Fearful of giving birth to a handicapped child, Mrs Finkbine
traveled from Phoenix to Sweden, where she had her baby aborted.
In June 1967, the American Medical Association voted to change that
body's long-standing opposition to abortion. With a new resolution, the
AMA now condoned abortion for the life or health of the mother, for a
baby's 'incapacitating' physical deformity or mental deficiency, or for
cases of rape or incest.
That same year, Colorado, North Carolina, and California became the
first states to adopt versions of the ALI "reform" abortion law. By
1970, though, four states - New York, Alaska, Hawaii and Washington -
passed laws that basically allowed abortion on demand. Of those four,
New York's was the only law without a residency requirement and the
state quickly became the nation's abortion capital.
The pro-abortion onslaught was beginning to face opposition,
though, as pro-life forces organized. In 1972, the New York legislature
voted to repeal the state's liberal abortion law, but Governor Nelson
Rockafeller vetoed the repeal. Ballot questions in Michigan and North
Dakota that same year attempted to decriminalize abortion; the measures
were defeated by majorities of 63 percent and 78 percent, respectively.
Just as pro-lifers were beginning to turn the tide however, the
Supreme Court handed down Roe vs Wade in January 1973. With one
judicial stroke, over 200 years of legal protection for the unborn was
rendered null and void. For the first time in American history,
abortion was the "law of the land".
See also:
The United States Constitution
and States' Government
The Virginia Declaration of Rights strongly influenced Thomas Jefferson in writing
the first part of the Declaration of Independence. It later provided the foundation
for the Bill of Rights.
Here, in exalted and unforgettable phrases, Jefferson expressed the convictions in
the minds and hearts of the American people. The political philosophy of the
Declaration was not new; its ideals of individual liberty had already been
expressed by John Locke and the Continental philosophers.
|
What Jefferson did was to summarize this philosophy in "self-evident truths"
and set forth a list of grievances against the King in order to justify before the world
the breaking of ties between the colonies and the mother country.
|
Adopted unanimously June 12, 1776 Virginia Convention of Delegates drafted by
Mr. George Mason:
I That all men are by nature equally free and independent, and have certain
inherent rights, of which, when they enter into a state of society, they
cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest their posterity; namely, the
enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing
property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety.
Robert C. Cannada, Senior Counsel, Butler, Snow, O'Mara, Stevens & Cannada,
PLLC, Jackson, Mississippi, "America's Choice: A Limited Government Or A
Totalitarian Government," The National Lawyers Association Review, Winter 1996.
"The National Lawyers Association takes the position that the practical effect of
the legal connection or relationship between the Declaration and the Constitution
is that the Constitution is to be interpreted in the light of the principles set forth in
the Declaration.[...] The Preamble introduces and explains the purpose of
The U.S. Constitution, and links it to The Declaration of Independence."
Preamble to the U.S. Constitution," We the People of the United States,
in Order to....secure the Blessings of Liberty to...our Posterity, do ordain and
establish this Constitution...." Founders' Constitution
The source most often cited by the founding fathers in their political writings
(1760-1805) was the Bible, which accounted for 34% of all citations. Deuteronomy
was the most frequently cited book of the Bible." Charles S. Hyneman (Editor),
Donald S. Lutz (Editor), American Political Writing During the Founding Era:
1760-1805 (Indianapolis, IN, U.S.A.: Liberty Fund, Incorporated, 1983)
(Referenced in John Eidsmoe, Christianity and the Constitution, Baker Books,
pp. 51,52)
|
The National Lawyers Association takes the position that the practical effect of the
legal connection or relationship between the Declaration and the Constitution is that
the Constitution is to be interpreted in the light of the principles set forth in the
Declaration.[...] The Preamble introduces and explains the purpose of The U.S.
Constitution, and links it to The Declaration of Independence." Robert C. Cannada,
Senior Counsel, Butler, Snow, O'Mara, Stevens & Cannada, PLLC, Jackson, Mississippi,
"America's Choice: A Limited Government Or A Totalitarian Government," The National
Lawyers Association Review, Winter 1996. NLA Review Winter 1996 - AMERICA'S CHOICE
"....all Men are created equal...endowed by their Creator with...unalienable Rights, that
among these are Life....to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted...."
The Avalon Project Declaration of Independence, July 4, 1776 A Creator either exists,
or doesn't. If there is no Creator, Jefferson's appeal to the "Supreme Judge of the world"
in the Declaration of Independence is pure nonsense and so are your RIGHTS! Without
a Creator, your highest appeal is to the State, where might takes rights. Think about it,
next time you hear someone scream separation of Creator and State. Think about what
a person means when they emphatically state, "there are no absolute truths" in
contradistinction to Jefferson's: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are
created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that
among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights,
Governments are instituted...."
The U.S. Constitution
the Roe v Wade OPINION
and it's progeny
 When the right to permit mass murder on demand couldn't
be discovered in the Constitution, it was fabricated by U.S.
Supreme Court majority opinion in defiance of science,
ethics and the fundamental purpose of government itself!
An appeal to the "Supreme Judge of the world" would have
been futile.
Like the Devil himself, "For you have said in your heart:
'I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the
stars of God; I will also sit on the mount of the
congregation . . . ; I will ascend above the heights of the
clouds, I will be like the Most High' " (Is. 14:13,14), the
sinister seven of Roe v Wade infamy essentially
asserted same - We will exalt our throne above the
Constitution - We have evolved from mere judges bound
by the Constitution into being the Supreme Law.
|
|
|
The Worst Constitutional Decision of All Time
"As noted before, the Supreme Court did not invent abortion. There might be
plenty of abortion, perhaps authorized or permitted by state laws, even without
Roe and Casey. Moreover, the Court is, arguably, not directly responsible for
the wrong moral choices of individuals that the Court's decisions permit.
Finally, the Court is not responsible - cannot be responsible, consistent with
its constitutional role - for correcting all injustices, even grave ones. But the
Court is responsible for the injustices that it inflicts on society that are not
consistent with, but in fact betray, its constitutional responsibilities. To the
extent that the Court has invalidated essentially all legal restriction of abortion,
it has authorized private violence on a scale, and of a kind, that unavoidably
evokes the memories of American slavery and of the Nazi Holocaust. And by
cloaking that authorization in the forms of the law - in the name of the Supreme
Law of the Land - the Court has taught the American people that such private
violence is a right and, by clear implication, that it is alright. Go ahead. The
Constitution is on your side. This is among your most cherished constitutional
freedoms. Nobody ought to oppose you in your action. We have said so.
The decision in Casey, reaffirming Roe and itself reaffirmed and extended in
Carhart, in my view exposes the Supreme Court, as currently constituted, as
a lawless, rogue institution capable of the most monstrous of injustices in the
name of law, with a smugness and arrogance worthy of the worst totalitarian
dictatorships of all time. The Court, as it stands today, has, with its abortion
decisions, forfeited its legal and moral legitimacy as an institution. It has forfeited
its claimed authority to speak for the Constitution. It has forfeited its entitlement
to have its decisions respected, and followed, by the other branches of
government, by the states, and by the People. The enthusiasm of liberal
intelligentsia for the Court's abortion decisions, the sycophancy of the law
professorate, of the legal profession, and of our elected officials, and the docility
of the American people with respect to our lawless, authoritarian Court rivals the
pliancy of the most cowardly, servile peoples toward ruinous, brutal,
anti-democratic regimes throughout world history. We suffer people to commit
despicable acts of private violence and we welcome - some of us revere - a regime
that destroys popular government for the sake of perverted, Orwellian notions of
"liberty." After a twentieth century that saw some of the worst barbarisms and
atrocities ever committed by humankind, at a time when humankind supposedly
had progressed to more enlightened states, we still have not learned. The lesson
of the Holocaust - "Never Forget" - is lost. We fail to recognize the amazing
capacity of human beings to commit unthinkable, barbaric evil, and of others to
tolerate it. We remember and are aghast at the atrocities of others, committed
in the past, or in distant lands today. But we do not even recognize the similar
atrocities that we ourselves commit, and tolerate, today."
The Constitution and the Courts
The following quote from Andrew Jackson is a concise statement of
Constitutional principal that has been ignored, or forgotten for many
decades. The prevailing myth seems to be that the Constitution is what
the federal judiciary says it is, regardless of the extent of deviation from
text or intent, and that all others who are bound by an oath of Office in
Article 6, Clause 3 are forbidden to act on their understanding of the text
they are sworn to uphold.
Article 6, Clause 3 contains no Oath or Affirmation to support any federal
judicial opinion. The plain text of the Constitution reveals separation of
powers, checks & balances and coordinate functioning of three branches
that are not coequal in power. Power of impeachment, funding, regulation
of lower federal court jurisdiction and the U.S. Supreme appelate
jurisdiction resides in Congress. The President has the power of
enforcement and isn't Constitutionally, legally, or ethically required to blindly
enforce blatantly unconstitutional opinions. The Supreme Court has only
the power of opinion, which has become far more biased in its increasing
disregard of plain text than the mainstream media has been in its
disregard of plain fact.
 If the opinion of the Supreme Court covered the whole
ground of this act, it ought not to control the coordinate
authorities of this Government. The Congress, the Executive,
and the Court must each for itself be guided by its own
opinion of the Constitution. Each public officer who takes
an oath to support the Constitution swears that he will
support it as he understands it, and not as it is understood
by others. It is as much the duty of the House of
Representatives, of the Senate, and of the President to
decide upon the constitutionality of any bill or resolution
which may be presented to them for passage or approval
as it is of the supreme judges when it may be brought before
them for judicial decision. The opinion of the judges has no
more authority over Congress than the opinion of Congress has over the judges, and on that point the President is independent of both. The authority of the Supreme Court must not, therefore, be permitted to control the Congress or the Executive when acting in their legislative capacities, but to have only such influence as the force of their reasoning may deserve.
|
Congressman Ron Paul
October 4, 2004
(Emphasis added)
Last week’s debate over the constitutional marriage amendment brought even greater attention to the issue of activist judges. From gay marriage to Boy Scouts to frivolous lawsuits to the Pledge of Allegiance, Americans have grown increasingly distrustful and suspicious of our federal courts- and rightfully so. Never in our history have unaccountable federal judges wielded more power over our lives.
Judicial activism, the practice of judges ignoring the law and deciding cases based on their personal political views, has intensified in the decades since Roe v. Wade. This practice is now standard for many federal judges. They dismiss the doctrine of strict construction as hopelessly outdated, instead treating the Constitution as fluid and malleable to create a desired outcome in any given case. For judges who see themselves as social activists, their vision of justice is more important than the letter of the laws they are sworn to interpret and uphold. With the federal judiciary focused more on promoting a social agenda than upholding the rule of law, Americans find themselves increasingly governed by men they did not elect and cannot remove from office.
But what is to be done? Since many citizens lack basic knowledge of our Constitution and federalist system, they are easily manipulated by media and academic elites who tell them that judges are the absolute and final arbiters of US law. But the Supreme Court is not supreme over the other branches of government; it is supreme only over lower federal courts. If Americans wish to be free of judicial tyranny, they must at least develop basic knowledge of the judicial role in our republican government. The present state of affairs is a direct result of our collective ignorance.
The ultimate solution to the problem of unbridled judicial activism at the federal level is clear: Congress must reassert its constitutional authority to define and restrict the jurisdiction of federal courts. This power is plainly granted in Article III, and no constitutional amendments are required. On the contrary, any constitutional amendment addressing judicial activism would only grant legitimacy to the dangerous idea that social issues are federal matters. Remember, when social issues are federalized, conservatives always lose. Giving more authority over social matters to any branch of the federal government is a mistake, because a centralized government is unlikely to reflect local sentiment for long. If anything, the marriage amendment would have given the secular left an excuse to impose gay marriage on all of us in future years, as the issue would have been irrefutably federalized.
Congressional cowardice enables judicial activism. Just as Congress ceded far too much legislative authority to presidents throughout the 20th century, it similarly has allowed federal judges to operate wildly beyond their constitutional role. In fact, many current members of Congress apparently accept the false notion that federal court judgments are superior to congressional statutes. Unless and until Congress asserts itself by limiting federal court jurisdiction, judges will continue to act as de facto lawmakers.
The political left increasingly uses the federal judiciary to do in court what it cannot do at the ballot box: advance an activist, secular, multicultural political agenda of which most Americans disapprove. As a society we should reconsider the wisdom of lifetime tenure for federal judges, and pay closer attention to the judicial nomination procedure. It’s time for the executive and legislative branches to show some backbone, appoint judges who follow the Constitution, and remove those who do not. It’s also time for Congress to start establishing clear limits on federal judicial power.
 See also:
|
The three branches of federal government are coordinate, not coequal in power.
The U.S. Constitution confers no monopoly of interpretation to the U.S. Supreme
Court. Checks and balances exist, but Congress can remove a President and any
federal judge for any reason THEY THE SEE FIT under high crimes and misdemeanors,
or in the case of federal judges - bad behavior. Congress is accountable only to the people,
not the President or Judiciary. While this may be SHOCKING to many---Let the links be
submitted to a candid world:
"On every question of construction [of the Constitution] let us carry ourselves back
to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the
debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or
intended against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed."-
Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826), letter to Judge William Johnson,
(from Monticello, June 12, 1823) FOUNDER'S LIBRARY
"The Constitution was written to be understood by the voters; its words and phrases
were used in their normal and ordinary, as distinguished from technical meaning;
where the intention is clear, there is no room for construction, and no excuse for
interpolation or addition." - Martin v. Hunter's Lessee, 1 Wheat 304; Gibbons v.
Ogden, 9 Wheat 419; Brown v. Maryland, 12 Wheat 419; Craig v. Missouri, 4 Pet
10; Tennessee v. Whitworth, 117 U.S. 139; Lake County v. Rollins, 130 U.S. 662;
Hodges v. United States, 203 U.S. 1; Edwards v. Cuba R. Co., 268 U.S. 628; The
Pocket Veto Case, 279 U.S. 655; (Justice) Story on the Constitution, 5th ed., Sec 451;
Cooley's Constitutional Limitations, 2nd ed., p. 61, 70.
The judiciary, on the contrary, has no influence over either the sword or the purse;
no direction either of the strength or of the wealth of the society; and can take no
active resolution whatever. It may truly be said to have neither FORCE nor WILL,
but merely judgment; and must ultimately depend upon the aid of the executive arm
even for the efficacy of its judgments.
It proves incontestably, that the judiciary is beyond comparison the weakest of the
three departments of power 1 The celebrated Montesquieu, speaking of them, says:
"Of the three powers above mentioned, the judiciary is next to nothing.''
"Montesquieu: The Spirit of Laws.'' vol. i., page 186. And it proves, in the last place,
... that as, from the natural feebleness of the judiciary, it is in continual jeopardy of
being overpowered, awed, or influenced by its co-ordinate branches....
But it is not possible to give to each department an equal power of self-defense.
In republican government, the legislative authority necessarily predominates
"In the first place, there is not a syllable in the plan under consideration which directly
empowers the national courts to construe the laws according to the spirit of the
Constitution, or which gives them any greater latitude in this respect than may be
claimed by the courts of every State."
"It may in the last place be observed that the supposed danger of judiciary
encroachments on the legislative authority which has been upon many occasions
reiterated is in reality a phantom. Particular misconstructions and contraventions of
the will of the legislature may now and then happen; but they can never be so
extensive as to amount to an inconvenience, or in any sensible degree to affect the
order of the political system. This may be inferred with certainty from the general
nature of the judicial power, from the objects to which it relates, from the manner in
which it is exercised, from its comparative weakness, and from its total incapacity to
support its usurpations by force. And the inference is greatly fortified by the
consideration of the important constitutional check which the power of instituting
impeachments in one part of the legislative body, and of determining upon them in
the other, would give to that body upon the members of the judicial department.
This is alone a complete security. There never can be danger that the judges, by a
series of deliberate usurpations on the authority of the legislature, would hazard the
united resentment of the body intrusted with it, while this body was possessed of the
means of punishing their presumption by degrading them from their stations."
While he was President, he asserted his position by his
action (or inaction) rather than by theories, but after he
had left office he made clear in letters and otherwise his
position. For example, he wrote in a letter in 1820: "You
[William C. Jarvis] seem ...to consider the judges as the
ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions, a very
dangerous doctrine indeed and one which would place
us under the despotism of an oligarchy . . . The
constitution has erected no such single tribunal,
knowing that, to whatever hands confided, with the
corruptions of time and party its members would
become despots."
|
 |
Justice Curtis's warning is as timely today as it was 135 years ago:
"[W]hen a strict interpretation of the Constitution, according to the fixed rules which
govern the interpretation of laws, is abandoned, and the theoretical opinions of
individuals are allowed to control its meaning, we have no longer a Constitution; we
are under the government of individual men, who for the time being have power to
declare what the Constitution is, according to their own views of what it ought to mean."
Dred Scott v. Sandford, 19 How. 393, 621 (1857) (Curtis, J., dissenting).
The Imperial Judiciary lives. It is instructive to compare this Nietzschean vision of
us unelected, life tenured judges--leading a Volk who will be "tested by following,"
and whose very "belief in themselves" is mystically bound up in their "understanding"
of a Court that "speak[s] before all others for their constitutional ideals"--with the
somewhat more modest role envisioned for these lawyers by the Founders.
"The judiciary . . . has . . . no direction either of the strength or of the wealth
of the society, and can take no active resolution whatever. It may truly be said
to have neither Force nor Will but merely judgment . . . ."
The Federalist No. 78, pp. 393-394 (G. Wills ed. 1982).
Or, again, to compare this ecstasy of a Supreme Court in which there is, especially on
controversial matters, no shadow of change or hint of alteration ("There is a limit to
the amount of error that can plausibly be imputed to prior courts," ante, at 24), with
the more democratic views of a more humble man:
"[T]he candid citizen must confess that if the policy of the Government upon
vital questions affecting the whole people is to be irrevocably fixed by
decisions of the Supreme Court, . . . the people will have ceased to be their
own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned their Government into
the hands of that eminent tribunal." A. Lincoln, First Inaugural Address
(Mar. 4, 1861), reprinted in Inaugural Addresses of the Presidents of the
United States, S. Doc. No. 101-10, p. 139 (1989).
"Mr. Chairman, as a nonlawyer, I count it a high privilege to serve as a Member of
this Subcommittee. However, as a student of the United States Constitution, I would
not be truthful if I said that I have always understood as perceived by this nonlawyer
to be a disconnect between the plain wording and construction of the Constitution
and the opinions handed down by the Federal judiciary as, quote, "''constitutional,''"
end quote.
But this perceived disconnect was explained to me with such clarity by, and rightfully
so, a lawyer when I read the testimony of Dr. Leo Graglia, before the House of
Representatives Judiciary Committee's Subcommittee on Courts and Intellectual
Property, of May 15, 1997. Dr. Graglia, who is the A. Dalton Cross Professor of Law
at the University of Texas law school, profoundly observed that, quote, "''the first and
most important thing to know about constitutional law is that it has virtually nothing to
do with the Constitution,''" end quote. At that point, the scales fell from my eyes, and
I realized that I cannot confuse what is taught in our Nation's law schools and what
is expounded by so-called constitutional scholars on the 24-hour news talk shows with
the work of folks like Madison, Hamilton, Jay, and Washington, and others at Philadelphia
in 1787, or for that matter the first Congress in 1789 or the 39th Congress in 1866."
 |
I say that we must not interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists, because the Constitution forbids it, and the general welfare does not require us to do so. We must not withhold an efficient fugitive slave law because the Constitution requires us, as I understand it, not to withhold such a law. But we must prevent the out-spreading of the institution, because neither the Constitution nor general welfare requires us to extend it. We must prevent the revival of the African slave-trade, and the enacting by Congress of a territorial slave code. We must prevent each of these things being done by either congresses or courts. The people of these United States are the rightful masters of both congresses and courts, not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution.
Abraham Lincoln: 'Speech at Columbus, Ohio, September 16, 1859' in 'The Complete Works of Abraham Lincoln, v. 5' (New York: Francis D. Tandy Company, 1894 )
|
"Over eleven years ago, then-Attorney General Meese got a lot of attention for saying,
in an address at Tulane University, that "''the Constitution cannot be reduced to
constitutional law,''" and that in its notorious dicta in Cooper v. Aaron in 1958,
(see footnote 141) the Supreme Court had misread both the Constitution and Marbury
v. Madison in describing its own authority to determine the content of the supreme
law of the land.(see footnote 142) He was much excoriated on op-ed pages and by
many legal scholars, but he was absolutely right.
It is time to translate words into action, to move from rhetoric to a more concrete
approach. If we are serious about the proposition that all the branches of the national
government share a coordinate authority to interpret the Constitution, with none of
them commanding the obedience of the others as to every sort of constitutional question,
then it is past time the Congress began to assert its co-equal authority in practical
ways. This reassertion of congressional responsibility can begin with the breaking
of some comfortable habits." Congress, the Court, and the Constitution
"Here are three of our nation's leading constitutional theorists unflinchingly declaring:
(1) that the main job of constitutional scholars today is to justify judicial activism
(not to understand the Constitution); (2) that in our system, the word ''Constitution''
really means ''judicial role''; and (3) that constitutionalism is ''"anticonstitutional,''" or
''"self-contradictory!''" This is astounding. Constitutionalism may be a contradiction
under any regime in which judicial review is "''all or nothing;''" but judicial review is
'"'all or nothing'"' only under a theory of judicial supremacy. So if judicial supremacy
is incompatible with constitutionalism, shouldn't we just get rid of judicial supremacy,
and keep the Constitution? My answer is an unequivocal affirmative; and I would add
that American constitutional history supports this answer. Let's consider this history
While it is "''emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what
the law is,'"' certainly the same can be said of Congress and the President. All three
branches say what the law is. The Court states what the law is on the day a decision
comes down; the law may change later by actions taken by the elected branches.
I will give a number of prominent examples of this institutional interplay.
In 1803, Marshall did not think he was powerful enough to give orders to Congress
and the President. After the elections of 1800, with the Jeffersonians in control of
Congress and the Presidency, the Federalist Court was in no position to dictate to
the other branches. Marshall realized that he could not uphold the constitutionality of
Section 13 of the Judiciary Act of 1789 and direct Secretary of State James Madison
to deliver the commissions to the disappointed would-be judges. President Thomas
Jefferson and Madison would have ignored such an order. There is no reason to
think that Marshall believed that the Court was supreme on matters of constitutional
interpretation.
This conclusion is borne out by the impeachment hearings of Judge Pickering and
Justice Chase. Marbury was decided on February 24, 1803. The House impeached
Pickering on March 2, 1803 and the Senate convicted him on March 12, 1804. As
soon as the House impeached Pickering, it turned its guns on Chase. If that move
succeeded, Marshall had reason to believe he was next in line. With these threats
pressing upon the Court, Marshall wrote to Chase on January 23, 1804, suggesting
that Members of Congress did not have to impeach judges because they objected to
their judicial opinions. Instead, Congress could simply review and reverse objectionable
decisions through the regular legislative process. Here is Marshall's language in the
letter to Chase:
I think the modern doctrine of impeachment should yield to an appellate
jurisdiction in the legislature. A reversal of those legal opinions deemed
unsound by the legislature would certainly better comport with the mildness of
our character than [would] a removal of the Judge who has rendered them
unknowing of his fault.
The meaning of Marbury is placed in proper perspective when we recall that Marshall
never again struck down a congressional statute during his long tenure on the Bench,
which lasted from 1801 to 1835. Instead, he played a consistently supportive role in
upholding congressional interpretations of the Constitution. In the years following
Marbury, Marshall upheld the power of Congress to exercise the commerce power,
to create a U.S. Bank (even though no such power is expressly provided in the
Constitution), and to discharge other constitutional responsibilities. The judiciary
functioned as a yea-saying, not a negative, branch. Congress, the Court, and the Constitution
 |
The Numbers Game
on Correcting
the Courts
|
Amendment Article 5 = 2/3 House Majority + 2/3 Senate Majority + 3/4 States.
Federal courts that routinely violate most of the Bill of Rights will not respect a Pro-Life
amendment. The Courts are the problem, not the Constitution.
(435) (.667) = 290 Reps which is 71 more votes than a simple majority. The GOP has 231
(100) (.667) = 67 Senators which is 16 more votes than a simple majority. The GOP has 55
(50) (.75) = 38 States. The GOP has 28 State Governors. (Rough indication of legislative
sentiment in the various state houses) Majority, or simple majority, is simply one more
vote for than against. (9 votes for and 8 against)
A margin greater than a Majority is termed supermajority. 2/3 supermajority requires a
minimum of 2 votes yea, per every nea.
Those for mass murder are united in opposing any amendment, while those proposing
an amendment are divided on the wording. Assuming the GOP has as many who are
pro-mass murder as the Democrats have who are pro-life, an Amendment is presently
impossible.
The average ratio of 1.2:1 needs to increase to a minimum of 2:1 which may occur
in 2010-2012, if recent election trends are maintained.
Amendment proponents are divided on the wording, while the opponents are united in
opposing any Amendment. Additionally, all elected Republicans don't adhere to the
Pro-life Platform. A Republican Senate with ten percent defection would require 75
GOP Senators to pass an Amendment, unless the deficit were overcome with pro-life
Democrats.
Average time between proposal and ratification for all amendments except Amendment
27 = 1.67 years. Pro-lifers have been conscience shocking and heart warming since
1973 and will probably need to persevere for another decade to get an amendment.
An open Constitutional Convention, at this time in history, would put this nation well
beyond the point of no return.
The National Committee for a Human Life Amendment is dedicated to pursuing this
vision: We are committed to full legal recognition of the right to life of the unborn child,
and will not rest in our efforts until society respects the inherent worth and dignity of
every member of the human race."November 5, 1981 Statement before the Senate
Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution
(PDF Document)
American Life League - Activism The human life amendment. Professor Charles E. Rice,
Professor Emeritus of Law, Notre Dame Law School
Right to Life Act of 2003U.S. Rep.Ron Paul, M.D. frames the issue in a United State v the United States context:
The 1973 Roe vs. Wade ruling caused great harm in two distinct ways. First, it
legalized abortion at any stage, establishing clearly that the Supreme Court
and the government condoned the cheapening of human life. Second, it firmly
placed this crucial issue in the hands of the federal courts and national
government. The federalization of abortion was endorsed even by those who
opposed abortion. Instead of looking for state-by-state solutions and limiting
federal court jurisdiction, those anxious to protect life came to rely on federal
laws, eroding the constitutional process. The authors of the Constitution
intended for criminal matters and acts of violence (except for a few rare
exceptions) to be dealt with at the state level. Now, however, conservatives as
well as liberals find it acceptable to nationalize issues such as abortion, marriage,
prayer, and personal sexual matters-- with more federal legislation offered as
the only solution. This trend of transferring power from the states to the federal
government compounds our problems-- for when we lose, it affects all 50 states,
and overriding Congress or the Supreme Court becomes far more difficult than
dealing with a single state.
When reading Amendment X "The powers not delegated to the United States by the
Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively,
or to the people," keep the following in mind: "Power tends to corrupt; absolute power
corrupts absolutely" - Lord Acton, a British historian of the late nineteenth and early
twentieth centuries. Acton Institute for the Study of Religion & Liberty
It may be a reflection on human nature, that such devices should be necessary
to control the abuses of government. But what is government itself, but the
greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government
would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal
controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is
to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must
first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place
oblige it to control itself.
A dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the government;
but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions
"All powers that the Constitution neither delegates to the Federal Government nor
prohibits to the States are controlled by the people of each State."
- JUSTICE THOMAS
The States, via Constitutional compact/contract, expressly granted the Fed Gov
enumerated powers. The people within the States, via Constitutional compact/contract,
expressly granted their respective States enumerated powers. That which hasn't
been granted is retained by the people. Silence, or non-enumeration = retained.
The Federalist #48: "It will not be denied, that power is of an encroaching nature, and
that it ought to be effectually restrained from passing the limits assigned to it." Fed gov
has silently encroached into the retained powers while the voters and states have
remained silent. "A constitutional principle without an actual constituency to back
it up will soon crumble."
Federalism: Reconciling National Values with States' Rights and Local Control in the 21st Century (PDF)
Some commentary on the Tenth Amendment States Rights and the Union by
JUSTICE THOMAS, with whom THE CHIEF JUSTICE, JUSTICE O'CONNOR,
and JUSTICE SCALIA join, dissenting @ US Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton, 514 US 779 (1995).:
In Madison's words, the popular consent upon which the Constitution's authority
rests was "given by the people, not as individuals composing one entire nation,
but as composing the distinct and independent States to which they respectively
belong." The Federalist No. 39, p. 243 (C. Rossiter ed. 1961) (hereinafter The
Federalist). Accord, 3 Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption
of the Federal Constitution 94 (J. Elliot 2d ed. 1876) (hereinafter [ U.S. TERM
LIMITS, INC. v. THORNTON, ___ U.S. ___ (1995) , 3] Elliot) (remarks of
James Madison at the Virginia convention). 1
When they adopted the Federal Constitution, of course, the people of each
State surrendered some of their authority to the United States (and hence
to entities accountable to the people of other States as well as to themselves).
They affirmatively deprived their States of certain powers, see, e.g., Art. I, 10,
and they affirmatively conferred certain powers upon the Federal Government,
see, e.g., Art. I, 8. Because the people of the several States are the only true
source of power, however, the Federal Government enjoys no authority
beyond what the Constitution confers: the Federal Government's powers
are limited and enumerated. In the words of Justice Black, "[t]he United
States is entirely a creature of the Constitution. Its power and authority
have no other source." Reid v. Covert, 354 U.S. 1, 5 -6 (1957) (plurality opinion)
(footnote omitted).
In each State, the remainder of the people's powers - "[t]he powers not delegated
to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States,"
Amdt. [ U.S. TERM LIMITS, INC. v. THORNTON, ___ U.S. ___ (1995) , 4]
10 - are either delegated to the state government or retained by the people.
The Federal Constitution does not specify which of these two possibilities obtains;
it is up to the various state constitutions to declare which powers the people of
each State have delegated to their state government. As far as the Federal
Constitution is concerned, then, the States can exercise all powers that the
Constitution does not withhold from them. The Federal Government and the
States thus face different default rules: where the Constitution is silent about
the exercise of a particular power - that is, where the Constitution does not
speak either expressly or by necessary implication - the Federal Government
lacks that power and the States enjoy it.
These basic principles are enshrined in the Tenth Amendment, which declares
that all powers neither delegated to the Federal Government nor prohibited to the
States "are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." With this
careful last phrase, the Amendment avoids taking any position on the division of
power between the state governments and the people of the States: it is up to
the people of each State to determine which "reserved" powers their state
government may exercise. But the Amendment does make clear that powers
reside at the state level except where the Constitution removes them from that
level. All powers that the Constitution neither delegates to the Federal
Government nor prohibits to the States are controlled by the people of each
State.
To be sure, when the Tenth Amendment uses the phrase "the people," it does
not specify whether it is referring to the people of each State or the people of the
Nation as a whole. But the latter interpretation would make the Amendment
pointless: there would have been no reason to provide that where the Constitution
is silent about whether a particular power resides at the state level, it might or
might not do so. In addition, it [ U.S. TERM LIMITS, INC. v. THORNTON, ___ U.S.
___ (1995) , 5] would make no sense to speak of powers as being reserved to the
undifferentiated people of the Nation as a whole, because the Constitution does
not contemplate that those people will either exercise power or delegate it. The
Constitution simply does not recognize any mechanism for action by the
undifferentiated people of the Nation. Thus, the amendment provision of Article V
calls for amendments to be ratified not by a convention of the national people, but
by conventions of the people in each State or by the state legislatures
elected by those people. Likewise, the Constitution calls for Members of
Congress to be chosen State by State, rather than in nationwide elections. Even
the selection of the President surely the most national of national figures - is
accomplished by an electoral college made up of delegates chosen by the various
States, and candidates can lose a Presidential election despite winning a majority
of the votes cast in the Nation as a whole. See also Art. II, 1, cl. 3 (providing that
when no candidate secures a majority of electoral votes, the election of the
President is thrown into the House of Representatives, where "the Votes shall be
taken by States, the Representatives from each State having one Vote"); Amdt. 12
(same).
The people of each State obviously did trust their fate to the people of the
several States when they consented to the Constitution; not only did they
empower the governmental institutions of the United States, but they also
agreed to be bound by constitutional amendments that they themselves
refused to ratify. See Art. V (providing that proposed amendments shall take
effect upon ratification by three-quarters of the States). At the same time,
however, the people of each State retained their separate political identities.
As Chief Justice Marshall put it, "[n]o [ U.S. TERM LIMITS, INC. v. THORNTON,
___ U.S. ___ (1995) , 6] political dreamer was ever wild enough to think of
breaking down the lines which separate the States, and of compounding the
American people into one common mass." McCulloch v. Maryland, 4 Wheat.
316, 403 (1819). 2
Any ambiguity in the Tenth Amendment's use of the phrase "the people" is
cleared up by the body of the Constitution itself. Article I begins by providing
that the Congress of the United States enjoys "[a]ll legislative Powers herein
granted," 1, and goes on to give a careful enumeration of Congress' powers, 8.
It then concludes by enumerating certain powers that are prohibited to the States.
The import of this structure is the same as the import of the Tenth Amendment:
Appointment = A President who will appoint someone who will rule in
accordance with the U.S. Constitution instead of deviant precedent. PLUS an
unconstitutional requirement of a 60 vote Senate (rules)
http://www.nljonline.com/jipping/ BROKEN LINK
supermajority for confirmation. This approach begins to deal with the problem;
hence the unconstitutional Senate rules. The closer you get to solving the
problem, the more trenchant the problem becomes.
Appointments will be a viable option when those like former Alabama Chief Justice
Roy S. Moore begin to fill the federal courts in significant numbers. 1:3 on the High
Court are probably in favor of scraping Roe. The ratio must be a minimum of 1.25:1.
Oliver Wendell Holmes retired in January of 1932, at age 91 having become the oldest
member ever of the Supreme Court. Thurgood Marshall was the first African-American
justice. Sandra Day O'Connor was the first woman justice. Any guesses who will be
next... Alan Keyes and Ann Coulter don't count. He has the same last name as a
popular cartoon chracter whose first name is Speedy.
Born April 20, 1920 - Stevens -
Born October 1, 1924 - Rehnquist -
Born March 26, 1930 - O'Connor -
Born March 15, 1933 - Ginsburg
Born March 11, 1936 - Scalia -
Born July 23, 1936 - Kennedy -
Born August 15, 1938 -Breyer -
Born September 17, 1939 - Souter
Born June 28, 1948 - Thomas
The greatest evil is not now done in those sordid "dens of crime" that Dickens
loved to paint. It is not even done in concentration camps and labor camps.
In those we see its final result. But it is conceived and ordered (moved,
seconded, carried and minuted) by quiet men in clean, carpeted and well-lighted
offices, by quiet men with white collars and cut fingernails and smooth-shaven
cheeks who do not need to raise their voices.
- C.S. Lewis, The Screwtape Letters.
New York: Macmillan, 1964. Page ix
 1973 United States Supreme Court
|
The very best that could be expected by 2012, is for the High Court to be no worse
than at the end of 2004, unless some impeachments and removals occur.
Even Reagan the Great went one step forward with Antonin Scalia, and then two steps
backward with Sandra Day O'Connor and Anthony M. Kennedy. Pro-lifers had high
hopes for no other reason than that they were Reagan appointments. What the big
Pro-Life proclaimer gave in speeches his Supreme Court appointments took away.
"At the heart of liberty is the right to define one's own concept of existence,
of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life."'
"That sentence is constitutional law, written by three sitting Justices, two
appointed by President Ronald Reagan, one appointed by President
George H.W. Bush. And that sentence, from Planned Parenthood v.
Casey (1992), has now evolved from the aberration it seemed when first
uttered into an ingrained element of our jurisprudence, its bedrock authority
invoked just this past term to buttress the majority opinion in Lawrence v. Texas.
....Nixon, Ford, Reagan, and Bush appointees make up seven of the nine
Justices on the Court...we have to thank this same Court for finding
unconstitutional a Nebraska ban on partial-birth abortion, for approving racial
preferences in a public-university law school, and for discovering in Lawrence
v. Texas a constitutional right to sodomy.
The problem may reside in only two or three of those seven appointees. But
the solution, clearly, does not rest only in electing Presidents or congressmen
of one party as opposed to another. Altogether, such attempts to restrain the
"imperial judiciary" have not fared well in the recent past and cannot be counted
on to do better in the future." WILLIAM J. BENNETT
The great majority already in the judicial class will promote more of the same in
accordance with their unconstitional opinions already formed on The Fourteenth
Amendment.
Lino A. Graglia, A. Dalton Cross professor of the University of Texas School of Law:
"....Hope once lay in the making of new appointments, but the failure of
ten consecutive appointments by four Republican Presidents to
change the direction established by the Warren Court has shown this
hope, too, to be unreliable. Rule by judges can certainly be solved by
abolishing judicial review, but the real problem resides less in judicial
review as such than in the Court's reading of the Fourteenth
Amendment as a text without any definite meaning. That problem
could be solved either by returning the Fourteenth Amendment to its
original meaning or by giving it any definite meaning, thus making it a
judicially enforceable rule." The Committee for Justice
For the history and thorough refutation of the Incorporation Doctrine, see the
following:
(A Historical Discussion about Church and State in America)
Rehnquist's Dissent in Wallace v Jaffree (1985) ,
Government by Judiciary: The Transformation of the Fourteenth Amendment,
Second Edition, Raoul Berger, Forrest McDonald , Liberty Fund, Inc.;
2nd edition (June 1997),
The Fourteenth Amendment and the Bill of Rights; The Incorporation Theory,
Charles Fairman, Stanley Morrison, Leonard Williams Levy, Da Capo Press ,
January 1970
Removal of a Judge = Impeachment by House Majority + Conviction
by 2/3 Senate Majority. Impeachment Clauses
Impeachment is currently possible. Conviction will be possible 2010-2012.
The supermajority in the House is removed and the States don't have to bother.
The supermajority Senate remains. At least this approach focuses on the problem!
Would the federal judiciary pause prior to issuing another blatantly unconstitutional
opinion, if the House impeached one of their arrogant liars?
Federalist #65 - "A well-constituted court for the trial of impeachments is an
object not more to be desired than difficult to be obtained in a government wholly
elective. The subjects of its jurisdiction are those offenses which proceed from
the misconduct of public men, or, in other words, from the abuse or violation
of some public trust. They are of a nature which may with peculiar propriety be
denominated POLITICAL, as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to
the society itself."
Additional references for the severly challenged who think this approach is an
antiquated novelty:
Removal of federal court jurisdiction
(very important)
In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and
those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original
Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall
have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions,
and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.
You just read the most suppressed clause in the U.S. Constitution.
Federalist No. 81 explains in detail what most Conservatives, and all liberals and their
respective politicians suppress. This focuses directly on the problem of the tyranical
courts and rips the masks off hypocritical, PLINO Pro-Life-In-Name-Only politicians,
for passage requirements are IDENTICAL to ordinary legislation.
THIS APPROACH IS CURRENTLY POSSIBLE! It only requires a simple majority
in both Houses and the President.
Voters must demand this approach during the 2006 and 2008 elections
for it to be probable.
Here it is important to understand the difference between ORIGINAL and
APPELLATE jurisdiction.
ORIGINAL jurisdiction has absolutely NOTHING to do with any case related
to abortion. Article 3, Section 2, Clause 2 of the US Constitution gives Congress
the power to strip any and all APPELLATE jurisdiction from the supreme court
as well as from the inferior federal courts. Passage requirements are
IDENTICAL to ordinary legislation, simple majority in both houses and
presidential signature into law.
If, for example, Congress and the President were inclined to remove all
appellate jurisdiction regarding abortion from the federal courts in 1972,
Roe v Wade would never have been possible. Moreover, jurisdiction
stripping is a rather common occurrence. In the 107th Congress
In September 2004, the House passed H.R. 3313 (on marriage):
“To amend title 28, United States Code, to limit Federal court jurisdiction
over questions under the Defense of Marriage Act.” It was received in the
Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
|
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce the We the People Act. The We the People Act forbids federal courts, including the Supreme Court, from adjudicating cases concerning state laws and policies relating to religious liberties or ``privacy,'' including cases involving sexual practices, sexual orientation or reproduction. The We the People Act also protects the traditional definition of marriage from judicial activism by ensuring the Supreme Court cannot abuse the equal protection clause to redefine marriage. In order to hold federal judges accountable for abusing their powers, the act also provides that a judge who violates the act's limitations on judicial power shall either be impeached by Congress or removed by the president, according to rules established by the Congress. If you are still not convinced, consider the following:
The Avalon Project : Federalist No 78 It proves incontestably, that the judiciary is
beyond comparison the weakest of the three departments of power.
The celebrated Montesquieu, speaking of them, says: "Of the three powers above
mentioned, the judiciary is next to nothing.'' "The Spirit of Laws''
vol. i., page 186.
The Avalon Project : Federalist No 51 But it is not possible to give to each department
an equal power of self-defense. In republican government, the legislative authority
necessarily predominates
Amendment IX The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be
construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Amendment X The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor
prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
The federal courts derive their judicial power from Congress, not the Constitution.
Turner vs. Bank of North America 4 Dall. (4 U.S.,8(1799))
"On every question of construction [of the Constitution] let us carry ourselves
back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit
manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed
out of the text, or intended against it, conform to the probable one in which it was
passed."
Jefferson (1743-1826), letter to Judge William Johnson, (from Monticello,
June 12, 1823)
|
"The Constitution was written to be understood by the voters; its words and phrases
were used in their normal and ordinary, as distinguished from technical meaning;
where the intention is clear, there is no room for construction, and no excuse for
interpolation or addition." - Martin v. Hunter's Lessee, 1 Wheat 304; Gibbons v. Ogden,
9 Wheat 419; Brown v. Maryland, 12 Wheat 419; Craig v. Missouri, 4 Pet 10;
Tennessee v. Whitworth, 117 U.S. 139; Lake County v. Rollins, 130 U.S. 662;
Hodges v. United States, 203 U.S. 1; Edwards v. Cuba R. Co., 268 U.S. 628;
The Pocket Veto Case, 279 U.S. 655; (Justice) Story on the Constitution, 5th ed.,
Sec 451; Cooley's Constitutional Limitations, 2nd ed., p. 61, 70.
Also see:
Executive dissent with unconstitutional majority opinion
The President takes an oath of office Article 6, Clause 3 "to support this Constitution"
and not the penumbras emanating from deviant dicta and unconstitutional opinion.
The President can present his case of dissent to the public in a public address,
executive orders, through members of his cabinet and through members of his party.
He can act on his opinion, by not enforcing Roe v Wade and progeny against the States.
States could legislate as they did prior to the 1973 unconstitutional opinion.
The Origin and Scope of Roe -- Professor Douglas W. Kmiec presents letters
and records of correspondence between members of the Roe court that reveal
questionable motivations as well as a fundamental disrespect for normal principles
of judicial restraint.
Genocide, Politicide, Mass Murder, Democide
Interestingly, more Americans were killed by abortionists on September 11
(about 4,300) than were killed by Islamic terrorists (about 3,000). Assuming 3,000
deaths among the 50,000 people who worked at the World Trade Center, about one
in seventeen was killed. One in three unborn babies is killed by abortion every day.
On September 11, it would have been six times safer to be a worker in the Twin
Towers than it was to be a baby in her mother's womb." Mark Harrington Live
The evangelical preachers and conservative pundits fiddle while America enters the
4th decade of democide.
Exterminators and their innocent, virtually defenseless victims have existed
throughout history. Extermination has occurred under various labels, such as:
serial killers, terrorists, Jewish Holocaust, Roe v Wade, Khmer Rouge, Great
Terror, China Land Reform, Mao Ze-dong's Cultural Revolution, and the Soviet Gulags.
R.J. Rummel has defined and classified various exterminations by government @
Genocide : among other things, the killing of people by a government because of their
indelible group membership (race, ethnicity, religion, language).
Politicide : the murder of any person or people by a government because of their
politics or for political purposes.
Mass Murder : the indiscriminate killing of any person or people by a government.
Democide : The murder of any person or people by a government, including
genocide, politicide, and mass murder.
Jefferson, in the Declaration of Independence, stated:
"....all Men are created equal...endowed by their Creator with...unalienable
Rights, that among these are Life....to secure these Rights,
Governments are instituted...."
The fundamental purpose of government is to protect innocent human life!
R.J. Rummel:
Democide is meant to define the killing by government as the concept of murder
does individual killing in domestic society. Here intentionality (premeditation) is
critical. This also includes practical intentionality. If a government causes deaths
through a reckless and depraved indifference to human life, the deaths were
as though intended. If through neglect a mother lets her baby die of malnutrition,
this is murder. If we imprison a girl in our home, force her to do exhausting work
throughout the day, not even minimally feed and clothe her, and watch her gradually
die a little each day without helping her, then her inevitable death is not only our fault,
but our practical intention. It is murder. Similarly, for example, as the Soviet
government forcibly transported political prisoners to labor camps hundreds of
thousands of them died at the hands of criminals or guards, or from heat, cold,
and inadequate food and water. Although not intended (indeed, this deprived the
regime of their labor), the deaths were still public murder. It was democide.
Rummel again: WAR VERSUS GENOCIDE AND MASS MURDER
Published in The Wall Street Journal (July 7, 1986).
Yet, even more unbelievable than these vast numbers killed in war during
the lifetime of some still living, and largely unknown, is this shocking fact.
This century's total killed by absolutist governments already far
exceeds that for all wars, domestic and international. Indeed, this
number already approximates the number that might be killed in a
nuclear war.
Rummel's conclusion: Power, Genocide, And Mass Murder
The empirical and theoretical conclusion from these and other results is
clear. The way to virtually eliminate genocide and mass murder appears
to be through restricting and checking power. This means to foster
democratic freedom.
The Federalist #48: "It will not be denied, that power is of an encroaching nature,
and that it ought to be effectually restrained from passing the limits assigned to it."
Life-Protecting Judicial Limitation Act of 2003 To provide that the inferior courts
of the United States do not have jurisdiction to hear abortion-related cases.
EPILOG: UNLAWFUL EDICTS
One of the popular arguments for ending democide on demand, is to show how
mothers are harmed when they murder. No attempt is made to show how the
reigning culture of death can lead to increasingly arbitrary decisions that will
qualify other segements of the population for extermination.
The victims of the predatory state will be like their counterparts in the wild, the
young, old, and sickly in between. What has gone around as abortion will come
back around as Euthanasia. See- CBHD Death as Deliverance - J_ Daryl Charles
"In one of the final chapters of the book, entitled "To the Thanatoriums" he
prophesies about what Pope Paul VI presaged so clearly in his Encyclical
Humanae Vitae, that once the respect for human life at its inception is lost the
way will lead inevitably to euthanasia. "Drawing largely from my experience with
a similar brand of pagan excess I predict that entrepreneurs will set up multiple
small, discreet infirmaries for those who wish, have been talked into, coerced into,
or medically deceived into death.... But that will only be the first phase. As the
thanatoria flourish and expand into chains and franchised operations, the
accountants will eventually assume command, slashing expenses and overheads
as competition grows. The final streamlined, efficient, and economically flawless
version of the thanatorium will resemble nothing so much as the assembly line
factories that abortion clinics have become and -- farther on down the slope --
the ovens of Auschwitz." The Hand of God A Journey from Death to Life
"Three methods were applied to effect the perversion of the rule of law in Nazi
Germany:...the reinterpretation, by the German courts, of existing laws....
They also subverted the constitutional state by using existing laws to obtain a
pseudo - legal carte blanche for the legislation they wanted."
"Despite the anti - Jewish legislation, courts found themselves confronting legal
norms still in force, if interpreted under the established principles of the rule of law,
would have led to verdicts in favor of the Jewish party on trial. This problem, too,
was overcome by...reinterpreting existing law.... For all three methods, the
overriding principle was ..."it is the Fuhrer's will that determines what is good for
the German people, and the Fuhrer's will is the supreme law."
House Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution, July 20, 2000:
"My name is Gianna Jessen. I would like to say thank you for the opportunity to speak today. I count it no small thing to speak the truth. I depend solely on the grace of God to do this. I am 23 years old. I was aborted and I did not die. My biological mother was 7 months pregnant when she went to Planned Parenthood in southern California and they advised her to have a late-term saline abortion.
A saline abortion is a solution of salt saline that is injected into the mothers womb. The baby then gulps the solution, it burns the baby inside and out and then the mother is to deliver a dead baby within 24 hours.
This happened to me! I remained in the solution for approximately 18 hours and was delivered ALIVE on April 6, 1977 at 6:00 am in a California abortion clinic. There were young women in the room who had already been given their injections and were waiting to deliver dead babies. When they saw me they experienced the horror of murder. A nurse called an ambulance, while the abortionist was not yet on duty, and had me transferred to the hospital. I weighed a mere two pounds. I was saved by the sheer power of Jesus Christ.
Ladies and gentleman I should be blind, burned.....I should be dead! And yet, I live! Due to a lack of oxygen supply during the abortion I live with cerebral palsy. [...] Adolph Hitler once said: '"The receptive ability of the great masses is only very limited, their understanding is small; on the other hand their forgetfulness is great. This being so, all effective propaganda should be limited to a very few points which in turn, should be used as slogans until the very last man is able to imagine what is meant by such words.'" Today's slogans are: "'a woman's right to choose"' and "freedom of choice," etcetera. http://www.house.gov/judiciary/jess0720.htm
|
Bonnie Chernin Rogoff, Jews For Life
"A number of years ago, I took a college course in contemporary Jewish
history, and the course content obviously included a Holocaust
retrospective. The two questions every person in that class asked at
the end of the term are the same two questions that all distraught Jews
have been asking since the end of World War II: 1) How can a civilized,
intellectual and educated society of people, made up of individuals
presumably with consciences and souls just like everyone else, choose
to systematically target and eliminate another group of individuals in cold
blood, without mercy or a second thought? 2) Where was God during all
that time? Was He simply out to lunch for fifteen years while innocent
people were being tortured to death?
If something appears to be very, very wrong, it probably is. What we should
be doing is recognizing the wrong, admitting the wrong, naming it by its real
name, and punishing those responsible for perpetuating the wrong. That's
easy enough when you have errant individuals, or even small groups of bad
people doing bad things. What do you do when one huge organized system
of government is responsible for doing bad things? How do you stop that?
Moreover - and here's the key point - what does one do when "the system"
routinely injects propaganda to slowly and carefully transform something
horrible into something tolerable, necessary or even into an image of
goodness? How can an individual understand the truth of an issue if, by
the time they are familiar with it, it has been revised beyond recognition?"
In summation, the solution to reversing our cultural decline
requires not simply correction, but an examination of history,
an access to and understanding of facts. We pro-lifers know the
facts because we're involved, and we examine the abortion issue up
close. If we want the general public to know the truth behind the issue,
it is up to us to inform them to examine the laws firsthand, before
policymakers and pro-abortion organizations give them their version.
Then, everyone will have the knowledge to make wise decisions, and
hopefully vote those responsible for bad laws out of office.
When the Supreme Court declares open season on babies, nullifying
state rights they themselves set forth in the former Casey decision, it's
time for all Americans to take notice. Unless there is political intervention
now, soon, to stop our progression into complacency, we will one day
seriously regret our error. We'll be killing living children with resignation
and acceptance, perhaps even glee, along with other members of our
society deemed unfit or inconvenient. By then, deformed thinking will be
the norm and people will have so acclimated themselves that they will no
longer be able to distinguish the difference in value between a living human
being and a dead one.
We haven't reached that point where we are immune to films, lectures and
images of genocide; we are still capable of being horrified and desiring
change. My prayer is that our current level of discomfort becomes
unbearable and tortures us so, that we shudder and tremble at the
prospect of such a dreadful future for our children. Maybe then the fear
will urge us to do what is right, and vote only for candidates who will end
infanticide forever. Please remember the Holocausts. Both of them.
AEI - Publications Beneath the Supreme Court's many astounding decisions in
its 2002-2003 term, and the shifting judicial coalitions that produced those results,
runs a unifying basso continuo: Constitutional law, in the sense of judicial decisions
that are guided--at least in aspiration--by the text, structure, and logic of the written
Constitution, is dead. It has been replaced, often as a matter of explicit doctrine,
with subjective judicial impressions of popular sentiment or political utility.
Federalist Outlook, The Term the Constitution Died, Michael S. Greve,
Friday, July 25, 2003
Justice Curtis's warning is as timely today as it was 135 years ago:
"[W]hen a strict interpretation of the Constitution, according to the fixed
rules which govern the interpretation of laws, is abandoned, and the
theoretical opinions of individuals are allowed to control its meaning,
we have no longer a Constitution; we are under the government of
individual men, who for the time being have power to declare what the
Constitution is, according to their own views of what it ought tomean."
Dred Scott v. Sandford, 19 How. 393, 621 (1857) (Curtis, J., dissenting).
The Imperial Judiciary lives. It is instructive to compare this Nietzschean vision of us
unelected, life tenured judges--leading a Volk who will be "tested by following," and
whose very "belief in themselves" is mystically bound up in their "understanding"
of a Court that "speak[s] before all others for their constitutional ideals"--with the
somewhat more modest role envisioned for these lawyers by the Founders.
"The judiciary . . . has . . . no direction either of the strength or of the wealth
of the society, and can take no active resolution whatever. It may truly be
said to have neither Force nor Will but merely judgment . . . ."
The Federalist No. 78, pp. 393-394 (G. Wills ed. 1982).
Or, again, to compare this ecstasy of a Supreme Court in which there is, especially
on controversial matters, no shadow of change or hint of alteration ("There is a limit
to the amount of error that can plausibly be imputed to prior courts," ante, at 24),
with the more democratic views of a more humble man:
"[T]he candid citizen must confess that if the policy of the Government upon
vital questions affecting the whole people is to be irrevocably fixed by
decisions of the Supreme Court, . . . the people will have ceased to be
their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned their
Government into the hands of that eminent tribunal." A. Lincoln, First
Inaugural Address (Mar. 4, 1861), reprinted in Inaugural Addresses of the
Presidents of the United States, S. Doc. No. 101-10, p. 139 (1989).
UNLAWFUL EDICTS & INTERPOSITION
For there is no power but of God] As God is the origin of power, and the supreme Governor of the universe, he delegates authority to whomsoever he will; and though in many cases the governor himself may not be of God, yet civil government is of him; for without this there could be no society, no security, no private property; all would be confusion and anarchy, and the habitable world would soon be depopulated. In ancient times, God, in an especial manner, on many occasions appointed the individual who was to govern; and he accordingly governed by a Divine right, as in the case of Moses, Joshua, the Hebrew judges, and several of the Israelitish kings. In after times, and to the present day, he does that by a general superintending providence which he did before by especial designation. In all nations of the earth there is what may be called a constitution-a plan by which a particular country or state is governed; and this constitution is less or more calculated to promote the interests of the community. The civil governor, whether he be elective or hereditary, agrees to govern according to that constitution. Thus we may consider that there is a compact and consent between the governor and the governed, and in such a case, the potentate may be considered as coming to the supreme authority in the direct way of God's providence; and as civil government is of God, who is the fountain of law, order, and regularity, the civil governor, who administers the laws of a state according to its constitution, is the minister of God. But it has been asked: If the ruler be an immoral or profligate man, does he not prove himself thereby to be unworthy of his high office, and should he not be deposed? I answer, No: if he rule according to the constitution, nothing can justify rebellion against his authority. He may be irregular in his own private life; he may be an immoral man, and disgrace himself by an improper conduct: but if he rule according to the law; if he make no attempt to change the constitution, nor break the compact between him and the people; there is, therefore, no legal ground of opposition to his civil authority, and every act against him is not only rebellion in the worst sense of the word, but is unlawful and absolutely sinful.
Nothing can justify the opposition of the subjects to the ruler but overt attempts on his part to change the constitution, or to rule contrary to law.
When the ruler acts thus he dissolves the compact between him and his people; his authority is no longer binding, because illegal; and it is illegal because he is acting contrary to the laws of that constitution, according to which, on being raised to the supreme power, he promised to govern. This conduct justifies opposition to his government; but I contend that no personal misconduct in the ruler, no immorality in his own life, while he governs according to law, can justify either rebellion against him or contempt of his authority. For his political conduct he is accountable to his people; for his moral conduct he is accountable to God, his conscience, and the ministers of religion. A king may be a good moral man, and yet a weak, and indeed a bad and dangerous prince.
Verse 2. Whosoever resisteth the power] Æo antitassomenov, He who sets himself in order against this order of God; th tou qeou diatagh, and they who resist, oi anqesthkotev, they who obstinately, and for no right reason, oppose the ruler, and strive to unsettle the constitution, and to bring about illegal changes, Shall receive to themselves damnation.] krima, condemnation; shall be condemned both by the spirit and letter of that constitution, which, under pretense of defending or improving, they are indirectly labouring to subvert.
A Christian Manifesto, Francis A. Schaeffer, Amazon.com: Books, Crossway Books, Westchester, Illinois, 1981, p. 93.
Clearly, the state is to be a ministry of justice. This is the legitimate function of the state, and in this structure Christians are to obey the state as a matter of "conscience." But what is to be done when the state does that which violates its legitimate function? . . . The bottom line is that at a certain point there is not only the right, but the duty, to disobey the state. Through the ages Christians have taken the same position as did the early church in disobeying the state when it commanded what was contrary to God's law. William Tyndale, the English translator of the Bible, advocated the supreme authority of the Scripture over and against the state and the church. Government authorities continually sought to capture him, but Tyndale was successful in evading them for years. . . ."
In almost every place where the Reformation had success there was some form of civil disobedience or armed
rebellion. . . ."
Whereas Reformers such as Martin Luther and John Calvin had reserved the right to rebellion to the civil rulers alone, (John) Knox went further. He maintained that the common people had the right and duty to disobedience and rebellion if state officials ruled contrary to the Bible. To do otherwise would be rebellion against God. Knox was not against civil government per se. He knew well that civil government is ordained of God. Knox maintained, however, that state officials have the duty of obeying God's Laws." p. 93.
(Samuel) Rutherford argued that Romans 13 indicates that all power is from God and that government is ordained and instituted by God. The state, however, is to be administered according to the principles of God's Law; Acts of the state which contradicted God's Law were illegitimate and acts of tyranny. . . . Rutherford held that a tyrannical government is always immoral . . . since tyranny is satanic, not to resist it is to resist God -- to resist tyranny is to honor God . . . since the ruler is granted power conditionally, it follows that the people have the power to withdraw their sanction if the proper conditions are not fulfilled. . . . Violation of the trust gives the people a legitimate base for resistance. It follows from Rutherford's thesis that citizens have a moral obligation to resist unjust and tyrannical government." pp. 100-101.
Hitler's Cross:
The Revealing Story of How the Cross of Christ
Was Used As a Symbol of the Nazi Agenda
by Erwin W. Lutzer Moody Press, Chicago, 1995, p.111.amazon.com
German children were taught prompt, explicit obedience to parents, teachers, and military commanders. Respect for . . . (order) was taught by ritual and threat of punishment. Everyone was to keep pace with the nation and its highest good. Romans 13:1-2 was often quoted: "Let every person be in subjection to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God. . . ."
Hitler spoke of both Protestants and Catholics with contempt, convinced that all Christians would betray their God when they were forced to choose between the swastika and the Cross. Do you really believe the masses will be Christian again? Nonsense! Never again. . . . But we can hasten matters. The parsons will dig their own graves. They will betray their God to us. They will betray anything for the sake of their miserable jobs and incomes." p.104
We must support our government, but we must be ready to criticize it or even defy it when necessary. Patriotism is commendable when it is for a just cause . . . . if the German church has taught us the dangers of blind obedience to government we must eschew the mindless philosophy "My country, right or wrong'" . . . We must teach parents, teachers, nurses, bankers and attorneys to stand for biblical values; we must not be ashamed of "coming out of the closet" and letting people know that not everyone is buying into the relativistic values of our disintegrating culture." pp. 204-206.
Radio Liberty - CHURCHES NEED A GREAT AWAKENING Richard H. Strand, Ed.D.
Romans 13 tells us to obey government officials whom God ordained
Certainly, we must obey all the laws that do not disagree with God’s law. But Saint Paul addressed that epistle "to all that be in Rome," and there is no similarity between that tyrannical government in the first century and the elected representative government of America.
The word "ordained" used by Paul in that context means that God gives leaders authority to rule and we should obey them. It is being misinterpreted to mean that if we elect wicked leaders, God has chosen them! Does the God we worship promote worldwide abortion, homosexuality, fornication (distributing condoms even to children!), pornography, and genocide? He allows wicked leaders to sponsor such things, but they are certainly not things that He wants. He surely wants Christians to stop those evil things in a country where the people elect their own rulers.
With the same flawed argument using Romans 13, the church considers the
government’s doctrine of "the separation of church and state" almost sacrosanct.
That doctrine is a bold-faced lie that was imported from the Russian Constitution
by Masonic Justices who wanted to stop America from being a Christian nation,
and they have succeeded. The Supreme Court used that doctrine to keep
churches out of politics - nullifying the First Amendment, the intent of our Founding
Fathers, and 150 years of legal precedent. Congress, with a simple majority
vote and the support of the President could invalidate that decision and
restore the right of free religious expression by invoking Article III,
Section 2 of the Constitution, which can limit the appellate
jurisdiction of the Supreme Court on that issue. But I do not know
of a church that will ask their politicians to do that. They have bought
the oft-repeated lie that this doctrine is in our Constitution.
Black's Law Dictionary: Interposition"The doctrine that a state, in the exercise of its sovereignty, may reject a mandate of the federal government deemed to be unconstitutional or to exceed the powers delegated to the federal government.
The concept is based on the 10th Amendment of the Constitution of the United States reserving to the states powers not delegated to the United States. Historically, the doctrine emanated from Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 Dallas 419, wherein the state of Georgia, when sued in the Supreme Court by a private citizen of another state, entered a remonstrance and declined to recognize the court's jurisdiction. Amendment 11 validated Georgia's position.
Implementation of the doctrine may be peaceable, as by resolution, remonstrance or legislation, or may proceed ultimately to nullification with forcible resistance."
John Eidsmoe, Professor, Thomas Goode Jones School of Law:
Far from a radical doctrine, interposition is actually a middle ground position. Absolute submission to unlawful authority leads to and sanctions tyranny and oppression. Popular rebellion can lead to chaos and bloodshed. Interposition -- lesser magistrates, state and local authorities, placing themselves between their people and the higher magistrates or federal authorities -- is a moderate course that is less likely to result in either extreme.
Interposition has a long tradition in Western law and has led to some of the greatest advances in constitutional liberty. Medieval theologians and philosophers who addressed and endorsed interposition include John of Salisbury (1030-85 AD), James of Viterbo (circa 1300 AD), and Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274 AD). Aquinas believed that
"...the duty of obedience is, for the Christian, a consequence of this derivation of authority from God, and ceases when that ceases. But, as we have already said, authority may fail to derive from God for two reasons: either because of the way in which authority has been obtained, or in consequence of the use which is made of it." (Book 2, Commentary on the Sentences of Peter Lombard)
When a ruler becomes a tyrant, his authority no longer comes from God and he becomes an illegitimate ruler. While it may be better to bear with moderate degrees of tyranny, Christians must stand against the ruler when his tyranny becomes excessive. But popular rebellion may have disastrous consequences: the ruler may suppress the rebellion and become more tyrannical than before, or those who overthrow him, fearing that others may do the same, become just as tyrannical as their predecessors.
Federal power has expanded exponentially, at the expense of state and local authority and individual freedom. And the judicial branch of the federal government has become nearly absolute in its authority. Checks and balances against the judiciary still exist, but the other branches and levels of government seem unwilling to employ them. The result is that, as Professor Graglia of the University of Texas School of Law has stated,
"...judicial usurpation of legislative power has become so common and complete that the Supreme Court has become our most powerful and important instrument of government in terms of determining the nature and quality of American life. Questions literally of life and death (abortion and capital punishment), of public morality (control of pornography, prayer in the schools, and government aid to religious schools), and of public safety (criminal procedure and street demonstrations), are all, now, in the hands of judges under the guise of questions of constitutional law. The fact that the Constitution says nothing of, say, abortion, and indeed, explicitly and repeatedly recognizes the capital punishment the Court has come close to prohibiting, has made no difference.
The result is that the central truth of constitutional law today is that it has nothing to do with the Constitution except that the words 'due process' or 'equal protection' are almost always used by the judges in stating their conclusions. Not to put too fine a point on it, constitutional law has become a fraud, a cover for a system of government by the majority vote of a nine-person committee of lawyers, unelected and holding office for life."
written by Brent J. McIntosh, Law Clerk, Hon. Dennis Jacobs,
United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit:
The revolutionary understanding of the Second Amendment is founded on the idea that the right to bear arms exists to protect the American populace from governmental tyranny. The revolutionary right to bear arms is premised on the normative assertion that while representative government will generally ensure non-tyrannical governance, it is still imperative that the populace retain the means with which to effectuate the most drastic of representative actions: the overthrow of an antidemocratic regime. If other vehicles for popular control of the government (particularly the vote) fail, the right to alter or abolish the government ensures that the citizenry possesses the ultimate trump card in the interaction between the governing and the governed. This so-called "right of revolution"(19) is a fundamentally collective right; it does not exist for just any dissatisfied citizen to attempt overthrow of the government.(20)
Vindiciae Contra Tyrannos, therefore, does not argue for anarchy. It recommends resistance to tyranny based upon the authority of lower officers of the state. As such, it should be considered an argument for a conservative revolution." Quoted from Prof. Stanley Bamberg, Ph.D, "A Footnote to the Political Theory of John Adams, Vindiciae contra tyrannos," Center for the Advancement of Paleo Orthodoxy, Premise, Volume III, Number 7 / August 31, 1996.
|
 |
